The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments that the suit property is his ancestral property, is not acceptable in view of the vague statement in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC application. In this case, it is noteworthy that the petitioners are seeking impleadment in the original suit asserting their right in the suit property after preparation of the preliminary decree i.e. at the stage of preparation of final decree of partition, which has to be prepared in terms of the preliminary decree, declaring rights of the parties in the suit property. While seeking impleadment for declaration of their rights in the suit for partition, the impleadment applicants were under obligation to disclose their right and interest in the suit property. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litus may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. This general rule is, however, subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which confers power on the Court for impleadment of proper or necessary party, at any stage of the proceedings. The discretion under this sub rule can be exercised either suo-moto or on the application of any of the parties to the suit, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. However, a stranger to the suit cannot be added as either
